account_summary

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full behavioral burden; it does add one genuine detail — that P&L excludes flows — which is real context beyond structured fields. However, it says nothing about whether the summary is a point-in-time snapshot, whether the call is read-only, or any rate/permission constraints, leaving the safety profile unstated.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

A single tight sentence fragment with zero filler, and the most decision-relevant item (equity, P&L) is front-loaded. It is arguably under-specified rather than bloated, which is a different flaw already captured elsewhere.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so return values need not be explained, and a zero-param read tool needs little documentation. Still, in a trading-agent toolset with siblings covering limits, approvals and order status, the description should say what question this tool answers and when to prefer it, which it does not.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The tool takes zero parameters, so the schema baseline of 4 applies and there is nothing for the description to compensate for. No parameter meaning is lost.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description is a noun phrase enumerating returned data (equity, day P&L, positions, open orders, agent budget) rather than a verb+resource statement. It implies a read-only account snapshot and is roughly consistent with the name account_summary, but it never states the action, and offers nothing to distinguish it from siblings like policy_limits or order_status.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no when-to-use guidance at all: nothing says whether this should be called before preview_order/submit_order, or how it relates to policy_limits and order_status. The agent must infer usage purely from the listed fields.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.